The Strong Atheist Position
Atheist Revolution wrote a pretty good definition of what atheism is really about, what the term atheist really means, but missed out on explaining one of the most frequently misunderstood concepts of atheism: the strong atheist.
An atheist is simply an individual who do not hold the theistic belief claim (i.e., that god or gods exist)
This is all well and true, but many people seem to think that it’s the atheist making the claims and assertions that they know for a fact that God or gods don’t exist. This is especially frequent among believers, since naturally their current natural state is one of belief. That’s why when a strong atheist comes along, it might very seem like he’s actively asserting the non-existence of God or gods, which is not true. Wikipedia defines strong atheists like this:
An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism).
Hmm, that doesn’t sound right… It seems strong atheists do actually affirm that gods do not exist. But how can we possibly do that, without being believers ourselves? Let’s take another look at the Atheist Revolution article.
In Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith argues that such a definition reminds us that the burden of proof lies with the theist because this is the person making the belief claim. When the theist says, “God exists,” we are correct to expect evidence in support of this claim. Without such evidence, the claim cannot be accepted on rational grounds. The atheist is saying, “I don’t accept this claim,” and this rejection requires no evidence precisely because it is the default position where no positive assertion is being made.
This is crucial to the understanding of the atheist position. A weak atheist may look at the claim for God or gods, and say ‘this is not good enough’, but a strong atheist might add ‘and the evidence for a natural explanation far outweigh the evidence provided for the existence of God or gods, thus tipping the favor against their existence’. This is the strong atheist position. It is not one of belief, but of more certain disbelief. A strong atheist not only rejects the theist position due to lack of evidence, but favors the atheist position due to the existence of evidence for a natural explanation.
This is not about faith, nor belief, but only about the evidence. A person who claims that atheists have as much ‘blind faith’ as believers have not understood the atheist position at all.
“Atheism” is a generalization for a broad group of people who reject the existence of gods. The weak and strong modifiers are absolutely pointless; they serve only to confuse and divide, and I think they need to be thrown out entirely. On the other hand, I’m convinced that the real reason everybody gets confused is because atheists are attempting to identify themselves by what they are not (believers in a deity) rather than what they are (humanists, naturalists, etc.)
Most people I’ve heard say, “I’m an atheist,” say that and nothing more. Yeah, and so what? While that’s good and fine, those people have explained next to nothing. We shouldn’t fear to use the word “atheist” to describe ourselves, but we need to follow up. If we reject god, what do we accept? Scientific naturalism? Pantheism? Humanism? Karma? Astrology? New age mumbo jumbo?
I think, by the often hard-earned fact of rejecting the irrational idea of “God” an atheist has actually asserted a philosophy in opposition to the “might makes right” tyrannical philosophy of religious indoctrination, criticism, and control. They don’t just reject “god” they reject the tyranny represented by any irrational idea, any idea without rational empirical evidence, whether that’s kowtowing to one’s parents, one’s boss, one’s government, a dictator or a criminal, by rejecting “god” we’re showing our suspicion and rejection of any authority. And that’s fundamentally why atheists are feared and hated, we’re not just going to shut up, sit down and obey, we’re going to stand up for and if necessary fight for what’s right.
ArchangelChuck, you have made a false assertion, that there is a followup. You are incorrect that something must be “accepted”. Second, you are talking of philosophy, not religion. You want a philosophical followup to a religious answer. Your realize that theists can have philosophical ideas as well right?